David S. Cohen

When it comes time for Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings and ultimate vote, one of the major issues that will be on people’s minds is what he thinks of Roe v. Wade. Past nominees have dodged the question ― Clarence Thomas famously said that he hadn’t given it any thought during or since law school ― or answered with the meaningless tautology that the case is indeed precedent from the Supreme Court and is the “law of the land.” A notable exception is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who answered the question eloquently and in depth.

When Judge Kavanaugh is asked about Roe, he shouldn’t be able to dodge the question, because we have an unusually clear record of how he feels. I’m not referring to the case from 2017, when Kavanaugh was in dissent, arguing that the government could prevent an unaccompanied immigrant minor in federal custody from having an abortion. His opinion in that case was distressing, and an indication of a serious lack of concern for a minor’s well-being, but there’s much more direct evidence than that. There’s even video.

By David S. Cohen and Carole Joffe, Opinion Contributors
June 12, 2018

The Trump administration’s plan to impose a so-called “domestic gag rule”—a prohibition on providing, referring and counseling about abortion—on facilities receiving Title X funding for family planning services has unleashed a storm of criticism. The public comment period is now open, and the backlash promises to be fierce.

Medical groups state that withholding information about medical procedures is a violation of medical ethics. Numerous political observers note that the real intent of this measure is to deliver on Trump’s promise to defund Planned Parenthood, a major recipient of Title X funding. But largely overlooked in these responses to the domestic gag rule is that the current rules governing Title X grantees represent terrible public policy. As the public now weighs in on the proposed regulations, we should not forget that not only is the new gag rule harmful, but that the existing restrictions governing Title X and abortion care should be lifted as well because they are bad for patients and bad for public health.

Why the Battle for Reproductive Rights Is Never Over
New abortion restrictions mock Roe v. Wade with an oddly ironic effect

By David S. Cohen
May 10, 2018

If you've been following the news surrounding reproductive rights recently, you'd be forgiven for asking yourself whether we're living in a world where Roe v. Wade was never decided. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot make abortion illegal before viability – back then this meant about 28 weeks into pregnancy, now it's about 24 weeks. And yet, in March, Mississippi passed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks. Last week, Iowa one-upped the Magnolia State, passing a law banning abortion after just six weeks. And South Carolina nearly topped both of them, coming close to passing a law banning all abortions except in the case of life threat, rape or incest. The only thing that stopped that law was a rarely successful Democratic filibuster that pushed the legislature too close to the end of its calendar. In other words, if the law had been considered earlier in the year, the state could have banned almost all abortions.

Abortion is many things in America. Divisive. Politicized. A fact of life. It is also, in the world of health care, unique.

Part of what makes abortion provision unique is that it happens amid relentless efforts to create as many obstacles to it as possible. The preternatural determination of abortion providers overcomes most of these obstacles, but for too many women, there’s something else that makes their abortion possible: volunteers.

Days into his presidency, Trump and the GOP have already gone hard against reproductive rights
By David S. Cohen
Jan 25, 2017

One of the central planks of this weekend's Women's March was "open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education." Millions of people around the globe showed up to support this principle and to protest Donald Trump's threat to reproductive freedom. The mass gathering was the largest single-day demonstration in the history of the United States.

This week, President Trump and his fellow Republicans responded to the historic action with a giant "Fuck you!" By quickly acting to restrict abortion rights both at home and abroad, their message was clear: We couldn't care less about your silly protest.

Abortion’s future legality is not just a hypothetical issue in this election.

With the presidential election only one day away, the national conversation has turned from a rigged election to email security practices to early voting numbers. But with the polls showing a tightening of the race, it’s time to face one of the impending realities of the choice tomorrow — who is elected will determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned or whether abortion remains legal in all 50 states in the country.

This issue was briefly discussed during the third presidential debate where the candidates presented starkly contrasting views of abortion’s legality. Hillary Clinton said clearly that she would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would uphold Roe v. Wade and recognize the importance of women’s bodily autonomy. Donald Trump tried to dodge the question, but ultimately admitted that he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe and send the issue of abortion’s legality to the states to decide.